What would it take? Answer these questions.
Offline I'd like to know people's response to the follow questions. What would it take to eliminate the following scourges from the world? What changes in cultural attitudes, new technologies, education, laws and government policies would be necessary to end these?
To end crime?
To end poverty?
To end environmental damage?
To end religion?
To end all suffering, human and animal?
Is the cure for these things worse than the disease?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
Offline But many people never commit crimes. A function of genetics and environment. So if genetics and environment could be modified, why not?
I think the basic problem is that we have a competitive society. The people that are losing are going to do anything to avoid losing further.
Much of what we call crimes are redefinitions of what used to be acceptable behaviour. For example in many societies that follow the western mode of thought polygamy is a crime, yet many of these societies polygamy used to be a norm. We also have, on our statutes, victimless crimes. Crimes that have no complainant except society/government and are sometimes done to enforce "public morals". In Kenya, for example, we legislate against bedroom behaviour. Homosexual acts are prohibited, while homosexuality is not, yet, illegal. Thus you can be homosexual but as long as you do not commit a homosexual act you have not committed a crime. As societies change, the nature of crime changes. Having limited resources does have an effect too on criminal behaviour.
I would define poverty as suffering due to inability to obtain proper food, clothing, shelter and medicine.
It would require a rational social contract that requires people to limit their family size and contribute economically to the society. Otherwise population growth will limit the available resources to adequately take care of people.
Exactly. Thus finding a way to distribute "proper" food, shelter and medicine would eliminate that kind of poverty. However now the people with less access to higher level good/services are now redefined as poor.
I would define environmental damage as human activities that produce mass extinctions, mass death and suffering of other species and that make the planet less pleasing to humans.
This probabably would require humans live in space, only use the earth as an occasional vacation destination.
You are defining environmental change from the human perspective. You are also limiting it to what humans are as at now. Humans can evolve, either naturally or artificially, to the point where a different environment is pleasing to them. The planet has had mass extinctions before and probably will have more. What we humans are trying to do is avoid being the in the next mass extinction.
Cannot be done. Some people, however much knowledge is available to them will still choose what to believe, rational or otherwise. Some others will prey on this gullibility.
EXC wrote:Again this goes back to having a competitive society. Eliminate that and religion goes away. Or just have legal drugs that are better than religion.
Are we not, then, replacing on religion with another of drugs?
Why can't the link between nourishment/genetics be re-engineered? Suffering seems like natures way of limiting population growth. Why not other methods that don't involve suffering? A lion could be feed artificial meat, have it testicles chopped off and be cloned. Then given anti-depressants if it ever feels bad.
This is what humans do, change how nature works to suit our needs and desires. If the end of suffering is a desire why not take the next step?
This sounds more like changing our desires and needs to suit a principle. It could, perhaps, end suffering but then it also IMO ends pleasure.
But we have a scientific method to determine what are the real effects of cure. We can't approve a new cure for a disease until all the side affects are studied(unless the drug companies bribe someone). If humans can follow this method, these problems could be tackled. But it would seem we are more motivated by fear and superstition than by reason.
Do we, though, have scientific methods to determine the desirability of the cure? Mayhaps we could cure heterosexual tendencies scientifically and remove much of the cause of jealousy, pain and unwanted child bearing however is this a desirable outcome?
Cogito, ergo sum: I perceive, thus I do sums.
- Login to post comments
Offline EXC wrote:Again this goes back to having a competitive society. Eliminate that and religion goes away.
It seems to me, a common theme among theists, is that of morality.
It's well known that we often see ourselves in others. So, it seems to me that they are most afraid of what they see in themselves, and the potentials that lurk, when they look at others.
They don't 'trust' that others wouldn't lose control and become savage. Because they see that potential lurking in themselves.
So, it would be natural that they would want to be protected somehow.
A supernatural superhero would fit the bill nicely, in that instance.
I think the attribute of being competitive is what made us what we are today. If you take that out, we would have a bunch of 'pussies' doing a big circle jerk and singing cumbaya. We would no longer be humans. Eliminate that and everything goes away.
As for morality, I think it is more a warped perspective rather then the theists being 'demonic' for lack of a better word ( and to imply that you're demonizing them ). I was blessed without much of a conscience from birth, but I see reason to cooperate with everyone else. It gave me a personal perspective on morality that I've since learned to be self evident upon better study. In that I mean it is all subjective. The potential is there in everyone, if you understand that, it is liberating in a way, when you fuck up. Also you tend to hold yourself ultimately accountable.
Having a god to take the responsibility is tempting though.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
I can see this Manageri is very good with words! He's going to make you blow up the Earth!
That depends on how hungry you are. From the animals point of view, it is certainly better to let it live. But, I like to eat animals so I go for my personal enjoyment and kill it.
I also don't think it is better to kill a person because they are suffering. I fully support their right to kill themselves should they choose but I am not going to kill them because I think it is a good thing to end their suffering.
What is it about suffering that makes you think it is so horrible that it must end at all costs?
Apparently you see suffering as some great evil that should be obliterated or avoided. I don't. Suffering is part of life, sometimes it really sucks but even in suffering, life is often worth living. It is possible to suffer and experience pleasure at the same time; I would argue that the experience of pleasure is often magnified by suffering. It usually isn't one or the other and I doubt any person that has had an extended life hasn't had both joys and suffering.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
IOW, throw the baby out with the bath water...
Brilliant.
Did you graduate with honours?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
just wait for humans to deplete Earth to such an extent it cannot support large populations anymore. Mmmmm. I don't think there's a single fix. Maybe we'll invent a computer that will tell us exactly what to do, dispassionately and without bias but with an eye to doing the bestest for the mostest. We could call it SkyPilotNet.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Nah, it would just tell us the answer is 42 and start snickering.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I thought the answer was 54...
From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"In the first novel and radio series, a group of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings demand to learn the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything from the supercomputer, Deep Thought, specially built for this purpose. It takes Deep Thought 7½ million years to compute and check the answer, which turns out to be 42. Unfortunately, The Ultimate Question itself is unknown."
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
But many people never commit crimes. A function of genetics and environment. So if genetics and environment could be modified, why not?
I think the basic problem is that we have a competitive society. The people that are losing are going to do anything to avoid losing further.
I would define poverty as suffering due to inability to obtain proper food, clothing, shelter and medicine.
It would require a rational social contract that requires people to limit their family size and contribute economically to the society. Otherwise population growth will limit the available resources to adequately take care of people.
I would define environmental damage as human activities that produce mass extinctions, mass death and suffering of other species and that make the planet less pleasing to humans.
This probabably would require humans live in space, only use the earth as an occasional vacation destination.
Again this goes back to having a competitive society. Eliminate that and religion goes away. Or just have legal drugs that are better than religion.
Why can't the link between nourishment/genetics be re-engineered? Suffering seems like natures way of limiting population growth. Why not other methods that don't involve suffering? A lion could be feed artificial meat, have it testicles chopped off and be cloned. Then given anti-depressants if it ever feels bad.
This is what humans do, change how nature works to suit our needs and desires. If the end of suffering is a desire why not take the next step?
But we have a scientific method to determine what are the real effects of cure. We can't approve a new cure for a disease until all the side affects are studied(unless the drug companies bribe someone). If humans can follow this method, these problems could be tackled. But it would seem we are more motivated by fear and superstition than by reason.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
The correct answer is 54 the right answer is 42. Just ask Mr. M, he'll explain how that works.
The question is even simpler, "How many miles must a man walk down?"
I loved that book.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
It seems to me, a common theme among theists, is that of morality.
It's well known that we often see ourselves in others. So, it seems to me that they are most afraid of what they see in themselves, and the potentials that lurk, when they look at others.
They don't 'trust' that others wouldn't lose control and become savage. Because they see that potential lurking in themselves.
So, it would be natural that they would want to be protected somehow.
A supernatural superhero would fit the bill nicely, in that instance.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris